Jump to content




Photo

Extraordinary Conceptions Faces Major Lawsuit


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 LondonIF

LondonIF

    Newbie

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 2 posts

Posted 06 July 2010 - 07:04 PM

Someone just sent me a lawsuit just filed by a surrogate against Stephanie Caballero and Extraordinary Conceptions claiming they told her to lie to her insurance company so they would cover the surrogacy maternity bills. They all got denied and the surrogate is stuck with the bills and claims Stephanie Cabellero, the attorney and owner, not only asked her to lie but forged her name on documents. This is really scary that an agency and an attorney would do something like this. The case was filed June 5th in North County Court in San Diego and is called T***** vs. Extraordinary Conceptions. I bet this is going to get a lot of press. I've pasted most of the suit below. sorry it is a bit messy but this program won't allow me to post the PDF clean version so it translated most of the words so I could paste. I hope this woman gets her bills paid.

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALlFORi\lIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
NORTH COUNTY REGlO!"!\J, CE!"TER
10 . KATHERINE T******. and
JASON T*****. a married couple.
Plaintiffs.
EXTRAORDINARY CONCEPTIONS.
an international agencv:
STEPHANIE CABALLERO. ESQ ..
in her individual and
professional capacities: MARIO
CABALLERO. in his individual and
professional capacity.
SARAH CABALLI:RO. in her
individual and professional
capacities and DOES 1-25.
Defendants.
COi\.JPLAINT:
1, BREA.CH OF C01\TRACT
2. BAD FAITH
3. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY
-I. FRACD
5. NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION
6. CONVERSION
7. NEGLIGENCE
8. INTENTIONAL fNFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
9, NEGLIGENT fNFLlCTION OF
EMOTIOl\AL DISTRESS
COMES NOW Plaintiffs KATHERINE T***** and .IASON T***** alleging the
following against Defendants EXTRAORDINARY CONCEPTIONS. STEPHANIE
CABALLERO: ESQ .. MARIO CABALLERO. SARAH CABALLERO. and DOES \-
25:
FACTUAL SUMMARY
I. Plaintiffs KATHER1NE AND JASON T******. a married couple were ataH
-1-
times relevant to these proceo:dings residents of San Diego COUnty. in the State of
2 California.
3 2. Defendants EXTRAORDINARY CONCEPTIONS. is an Intc01utional Agency
4 which operates in thc State of Cali Jixnia. offering surrogate parent sen'ices:
5 STEPHANIE CABALLERO. ESQ .. is an individual and an Attorney at Law -licensed
6 to practice law in this State by the State Bar of California - wh~) owned and operated the
7 defendant Extraordinary Conceptions and was employcd by. and/or engaged ill the day to
8 day operations of that business within the Counl) of San Diego. in the State \)f
9 California. at all times relevant to these proceedings. She is sued in her individual and
10 professional capacities: MARIO CABALLERO. is an indivjdual \\ho co-owned and
II operated the defendant Extraordinary Conceptions with Defendant Stephanie Caballeros
12 and was emplo)'cd by. and/or engaged in the day 10 day operations of that business
13 within the County of San Diego. in the State of California. at all times relevant to these
14 proceedings. He is sued in his indiyidual and professional capacities; SARAH
15 CABALLERO. is an individual who at all times relevant to these proceedings was a
16 resident of the County of Orange. in the State ofCalifbmia. She is sued in her individual
17 .capacity.
18 3. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities of the defendants sued as
19 DOES 1 through 25. inclusi\e. but will amend this Complaint to allege theirtroe names
20 . and capacities when ascertained.
21 4. Plaintirts JASON and KATHERINE T***** (hereinafter "Jason" and/or
22 "Katherine," or "Plaintiff(s)"j are a married cQuple who ha\•e three children. of their own
23 together. Additionally. Katherine has sen'ed as a surrogate birth-mother for the benet1t of
24 Defendant Extraordinary Conceptions. hereinafter "ExtraordinaI; Conceptions:' since
I
25 i J anuaI;' 18. 2008. She has gi\'en birth to t\Yo babies no\\. under two separate contracts
26 with Extraordinary Conceptions. for the bene tit of two separate sets of "Intended
27 Parents."
28 CO\IPLAI:>:T -:2-
I
5. During the initial. pre-contraclllai stages of their relationship with Extraordinary
2 I Conceptions. the agency asked Jason and Katherine to pro\id.: it with inliJ1111ation about
3 the medical insurance policy under which she and he were covered. J nson obtained their
4 medical insuran,e through his employer. He and Katherine paid the premiums on their
5 o\\'n. The written contract which Extraordinary drafted and which the Plaintiffs would be
61 required to endorse tor Extraordinary det1ned 'the scope of their relationships with. duties
1 toward and the benefits they were to receive from Extraordinary and the Intended Parents
8 of the child whom Katherine would bear. Extraordinary reserved to itself in its contract
9 responsibility for seeing that the medical costs of the surrogacy proceSs were paid from a
10 trust which it would set up for thdr benefit. Extraordinary "ould serve as trustee and
II administrator over thl;: trust res. and the Intended Parents would furnish the trust res by
12 depositing spedt1c amounts of money into the trust via Extraordinary. at specific interl'als
13 prOVided for in the contract. The contract states that Extraordinary had tht: authority to
14 deteonine when "all fees, compensations. and benefits properly due and owing to the
15 Surrogate ha\'e been paid in full. and all medical fees. costs and expenses of the Surrogate
. 16 contemplated to be paid thorough the Trust Account have been paid in full ... " (See
17 Plaintiffs Exhibit A ["Gestational Parenting Agreement•'j. page 14 of 31. part 19.2.) As
18 a result. the Plaintiffs were not concerned about and did not doubt Extraordinary's
19 ostensible innocuous reasons for requiring them to pro"ide infonnation about their
20 medical insurance. They willingly provided the infonnation about the policy as required
21 b.v' Extraordinar.v. U.nfor.tuna.tel\,. she and .Iason would learn the hard \\av. as discussed ' '"
22 post. that Extraordinary had obtained their insurance infonllation under false pretenses.
23 and that Extraordinary intended fraudulently to employ their personal polley to pay the
24 medical bills resulting from the surrogacy proces~. When Extraordinary initially began to
25 bill their insurance and they objected. Extraordinary as,ured them that their insurance
26 covered the surrogacy and would cover the costs ofth~ binh as well. FurtheOllore. it
27 promised. there would be no out of pocket costs. nor any costs at all to be born by the
28 C"O\fPl.AI~T
.. , ~., ...
Plaintiffs as a result of Extraordinary" s use of their insurance.
") 6. It was around Augu5(. ::'009. when Extraordinary Conceptions began to send claims
3 to Katherine's and .lason•s medical insurer. BIue Shield. for a variety ofilledical bills
4 resulting: from essential prenutal care prO\ided to Katherine and for hcr surrogate birth of
5 mins she carried for intended parents pursuant to arrangements made and facilitated by
6 Extraordin<ll')' Conceptions.
7 7. Approximately one week following the birth of the twins, Katherine and Jason
,8 T***** began to receive bilIs from various medical labs. doctors. the hospital at which
9 she gave birth to the twins. and others. Extraordinal')' was to be responsible for arranging
10 medical co\erage for Katherine's prenatal care and to cover the birth of the twins. but it
11 fraudulently made claims to her and Jason T*****' insurer instead. \Vhen the insurer
1:2 denied many of the claims. Extraordinal')' did not pay the bills as it was obliged 10 do:
IJ instead. it allowed the bills to be sent for payment to the T***** .
14 8. Whenlirst she began to recdve the bills. Katherine T***** called Extraordinal')'
15 Conception's Executive Director. Defendant MARlO CABALLERO. However. she was
16 permitted only to speak with Defendant SAR.AH CABALLERO. her 'Surrogacy Case
17 Manager." Sarah Caballero told Katherine to send the hO$pital bills to defendant MARIO
18 CABALLERO'S oftice and that Extraordinal')' Conceptions would take care oflhe matter
J 9 right away.
20 9. Katherine promptly gOI into her car and drove to Extraordinal')"s otlices in order 10
21 deliver the bills in person. Extraordinary's staff declined to let her delh'er them to Mr.
~o Caballero in person. but they took the bills and promised to give them to Mr. Caballero.
23 Despite her efforts. Mr. Caballero and Extraordillal')' did nothing toward getting those
24 bills paid. Katherine. in her delicate post-partum state. of which Extraordinary was well
25 aware of course. and Jason ha\\:: had to endure an ul1\\,arranted ceaseless barrage of
26 harassing phone caJls and letters from the billing departments of the hospital and other
27 medical providers. Blue Cross Slopped paying the bills which Extraordinary had regularly
28 CO~IPL\I\T
submitted to it. in Katherine' s name. once it got wind of the fact that Katherine \vas
2 sen"ing as a surrogate. and that she \Vas not h~\ing her o\\'n child. The eddence shows
3 that Extraordinary was \yell aware that Blue Cross would not COH'r for-proHt surrogate
4 pregnancies and births. yet. it relied exclusively upon payment by Blue Cross as a hedge
5 against financial disaster for Katherine and Jason. Extraordinary's submission oflhe
6 medical bills to Blue Cross was done with intent to, or with reckless disn:gard that it
7 would deceive and defraud both Blue Cross and the Plaintiffs.
8 110. Later that same week during which she drove the medical bills she had received
I
9 . after Blue Cross bcgan to reject payment of them. Katherine called Extraordinary and
JO spoke with Jennifer Garcia. the Legal Assistant to Defendant Stephanie Caballero.
11 Katherine demanded that Extraordinary get the bills which she had delivered to it paid
12 right away. because she was being hounded for payment b:" the creditors. Ms. Garcia told
13 Katherine that she would have to contact the hospital to ask that the hospital resubmit the
14 bills to her insurance compan~'. Blue Cross.
J 5 II. Katherine spoke with Extraordinal)" s Sarah Caballero (not related to Mario or
16 Stephanie Caballero) during the same phone call. Ms. Caballero agreed that Katherine
J 7 would have to resubmit the bills to the hospital's billing department herselt: but this time.
18 I she instructed. Katherine should deny that the billing was for a surrogate birth. and [()
19 claim instead. that the ,hild was born \0 herself and her husband to conceal from the
20 hospital and from Blue Cross the fact that the births she endured were for surrogate
21 parents. and not for her and her husband.
22 12, That same week. during a different call which Katherine made \0 Extraordinary in
23 attempt to get the outstanding bills which daily caused her and her husband severe
24 emotional hann. as well as serious hann to their financial status. Defendant STEPHANIE
25 CABALLERO. an attorney at law in California. or her agent at her bequest. order~d
26 Katherine to deliver the Blue Cross benefits booklet so that she could examine the
27 services covered by Blue Cross. just in case it included surrogacies. Thus. for the second
28 I CO\lPLAIST -5-
I
I
I
, time that same week. Katherine was required to drive her car to Extraordinary
2 Conceptions' oflkes. this time to de)her thl! booklet.
3 13. After another two weeks passed. Katherine received a call from the hospital" s
4 department called Care Payment Plans. That departmel1l demanded an immediate
'5 payment from Katherine and threatened to send the bills into collections if she refused.
6 Katherine promised to call right back and then immediately called defendant Mario
7 Caballero. She was denied the abilit), to speak with him for the second time. and once
8 again she was translerred to Legal Assistant Sarah Caballero who told her to ask the ~ ~
9 hospital to resubmit the bills to her insurer. and this time. Ms. Caballero specificall;'
10 instructed Katherine not to tell the hospital"s Care Payment Plans thatlhe bills resulted
I 1 from a surrogate birth. Ms. Caballero instructed her to owrtly lie in order to make the
12 hospital's Care Payment Plans believe (hat the babies to whom she had given birth a week
13 prior I\<:re hers and her husband•s. Ms. Caballero additionally instructed Katherine ((I
14 make sure that she spoke with someone in the hospital's billing department with whom
15 she had not previously dealt. somebody other than the people to whom she had spoken
16 when last she asked them to resubmit the bills.
17 14. Out of financial desperation. not knowing What else to do. although her fnith in
18 Extraordinar;' was fairly depleted by then, Katherine did as Ms. Caballero and defendant
19 Extraordinary. et al. instructed her to do. She called the hospital. did not mention that the
20 bills resulted from a surrogacy. and requested that it resubmit her bills to her insurance
21 company. When Katherine called Ms. Caballero back again to let her know that the deed
22 was done. Ms. Caballero urgently demanded to know whether she had made certain to
23 insist that the birth was not a surrogacy.
24 15. On or about October 26.2009. Katherine em ailed defendant Stephanie Caballero's
25 Legal Assistant Jennifer Garcia. lind informcd her that she continucd 10 receive bills for
26 the twins' radiolog~' treatment. labs and other post~natal hospital care. cost which were
27 specifically to be born by the Intended Parents. as arranged by defendant Extraordinary.
28 CO~lPI.AI\T ~6-
under their contract. Ms. Garcia told Katherine I\l send th..: bilb to Extraordinary
2 Conceptions. and she promised this time to forward the bills to Extraordinary's Trusl
3 Administrator Carol (no last name gin.m). who handled the money paid into
4 Extraordinary Conception's trust fund by the Intt:nded Parents. and that Carol would just
5 pay the bills from the trust re~ (which is the manner in \\hich the medical costs were to
6 have been paid under the tenns of the contract in any event).
7 16. Katherine nevertheless continued to receive hospital bills. Meanwhile.
8 Extraordinary Conceptions repealedl~' assured both Katherine and Jason when one or the
9 other would call to complain. that the mattcr would be resoh'cd forthwith.
10 )7. Katherine repeatedly telephoned. emailed. and drove herself to Extraordinary
II
12
13
Conceptions in attempt meet with defendant Mario Caballero. the alleged proprietor of
that Extraordinary Conceptions branch of a world-wide tree of other branches. Katherine
souaht to ensure that Extraordinary was attending to the IInancial issue \\hich continued
0;;;;; " '. ...
14 to haunt her and Jason unabated. and increasingly to ruin them financially. Her
15 extraordinary efforts were to no avail. however, The pattern of being: placated \\•ith
16 hollow promises. and then being ignored or even ovenly mistreated by Extraordinary
17 Conceptions continued and still continues.
18 18. In or about the end of January 20 I O. Katherine received an email from defendant
19 Stephanie Caballero's Legal Assistant. Jennifer Garcia. in \\hich she claimed that the
20 hospital was at fault for the entire fiasco. because it had billed under the wrong codes.
21 Therefore. she asserted unabashedly. Katherine would have to gather all of her medical
22 claims and paperwork once again. and resubmit it all with the proper codes not to the
23 hospital or its billing agents this time. but to her own medical insurer. Blue Cross.jor Ihe
24 fourth lime! Ms. Garcia e\'en provided Katherine with a coyer letter to use \\hen she
25 resubmitted the bills on or about
26 19, Katherine did as Extraordinary Conceptions and Jennifer Garcia told her: On
27 Februal)' 5. 2010. she again resubmitted the bills. but this time directly to her insurer.
28 C(lMI'LA1,'r -7-
Blut: Cross. Dl:spit.: this Jatc5t effort. Katherine ilnd Jason !la\c continued to rcceive
:2 hounding culls and billing statements from th.: hospital and varjou~ health care pro\iders
3 whom she sa\\" during the course of her surroga!;y. Despite the Plaintiffs' continued pleas
4 for Extraordinary to abide by the contract between them by paying the bilJ5 generated by
i
5 : Katherine's sen'ices as a surrogate on Extraordinary's behalf. as usual. the Plaintiffs
6 received only Iip-sen'ice. empty promises. but no efforts or assistance whatsoever to
7 inten'ene on their beh,llf,
8 20. On or about February 18. 2010. for the second time. Katherine received a call from
9 "'Roni." of the hospital" s billing sen'ice - "Care Payment Plan," ROlli explained that
10 Katherine needed to pay something that day in order to stop the collections process from
II being initiated, Katherine explained again to Roni. that she and her husband should not
12 have been billed at all. that Extraordinary Conceptions and, or the Intended Parents for
13 whom Katherine had served as a surrogat ... mother were supposed to have paid all of the
14 costs associated with the surrogacy. including all medit:ul bills. Roni was relentle;;s and
15 unimpressed with the logic of Katherine's explanation, The hospital and other health care
16 providers whol11 Care Payment Plan rl;!presented had already billed and been denied
17 payment from the Plaintiffs' insurer. Blue Cross. and the medical sen'ices had all been
18 provided to Katherine ill her name. llot to Extraordinary or the Intended Parents for whom
19 Katherine had carried and given birth to a child. Care Payment Plan had allow<!d
20 Katherine and Jason six months to pay their hospital and other health care related hi lis.
21 and it simply could not extend them any more time, They would hu\'e to pay at least a
22 Significant portion of their total bill that day. or be rderred. by the close of business that
i' ~J day to collections, Of course. that would indude a referral to the credit agencies and a
24 concomitalllnegative effect upon the Plaintiffs' theretotore stellar credit score,
::!5 2 I. Katherine immediately called Extraordinal) Conception's Legal Assistant.
26 Jennifer Garda. Ms. Garcia conferenced into the call Extraordinary's Trust Fund
27 Administrator. CaroL Both Carol and Ms, Garcia specifically and explicitly promised
3
Katherine that they would call her later that day. that she need not worry. and that they
were going to hand!.: it. Although they did not call her hack that day as promised. nor at
any time during thl.! rest oflhat \\eek. she put her faith in the notion that they had indeed
4 handled the matter as promised. Her faith had once again been misplaced.
5 22. In late Marcil. 2010. the Plaintiff, finally retained ,ounsel to assist them \\"ith the
6 endless problems surrounding Katherine's surrogacy on defendant Extraordinary's behalf
7 which they had long endured. In earl~' April. 20 I O. counsel for the Plaintiffs spoke to an
8 agent named Lenin from Progressive !'v1anagement Services. Counsel was able to
9 convince Lenin to lorestall referring the matter to collections for one momh.
10 23. As anyon;;: would expect. the Plaintiffs' contract with Extraordinary Concepts
11 specil1cally provided that Extraordinary. nol the Plainti ffs. would secure medical
12 I insurance coverage in ord~r to pay all medical costs resulting from Katherine' 5 generous
131 services as a surrogate mother for one of Extraordinary's paying clients. Extraordinary
]4 never made any efforts at all to secure insurance of its own. norto pay any of the costs
] 5 which ha\'e resulted from her services as a surrogate. Nor did Extraordinary even cause
16 I payments tor the medical costs of Katherine' s sen ices to be paid by the tnlst fund into
17 which the Intended Parents were contractually required to make ample payments for
18 covering all costs. presumably, and oYer wh kh Extraordinary contractually reserved to
19 itself the role of administrator .. Instead. Extraordinary allowed all medical and other costs
20 reSUlting from her generous services. frol11 which Extraordinary financially benefitted
21 tremendously. . to be charged to Katherine and Jason T***** . Instead of co mine: to their ~ ~
22 rescue as they were contractually and ethically bound to do once the PlaintitTs began to
23 suffer the emotional and financial costs of Extraordin"ry's fraud upon them and their
24 I insurer. they talked a lot. bUlmade no efforts to assist the Plaintiffs at alL
~5 I 24. The Plaintiffs simply could not afflJrd to pay the bills which Extraordinary
26 i Conceptions detrauded them into believing at the outset of their agreement that they
I
27 would never need even to be concerned about. As a result of Extraordinary' s fraud. the
Plaimiffs' credit is ruined and they i::ot1tinue to cndur~ relentless humiliating. degrading
2 and depressing hounding. nQ\\' by collections creditors. whence legal action against them
3 is undoubtedly eminent. for an amount exceeding $25.000.00. But thut amount represents
4 only the tip of the iceberg sized amount of damages which Extraordinary has caused by its
5 i Ilreed and disre~ard to the Plainti ffs. I ~ ~
6125. Defendant Extraordinary Cmlception and its defendant owners and employees
71 finally applied icing to the deceit-tilled cake which they had cooked up for the Plaintiffs
8 . by overtly and brazenly forging the Plaintiffs' names to documents which the Plaintiffs
9 told them not to tile. More specitically. on or about March 13. 20 I O. Stephanie Caballero.
10 I the Attorney tor and Co-Founder of Extraordinary Conceptions. wrote an email to the
I•
I I I T***** addsing them that they needed immediately to tile an appeal with their medkal
12 insurer. Blue Cross. However. PlaintitrJason T***** told DeH:ndant Caballero that
13 before they tiled an app~al or an)thing else. he and Katherine wished to be provided
14 copies of all correspondenc~ between Extraordinary Conceptions and Blue Cross. which
15 was written on their behalf or in their names.
16 26. Defendant Stephanie Caballero ignored Jason's demand to redew her and her
17 agency's correspondence with Blue Cross. Instead. on March 14.2010. the very next day
18 following his explicit refusal to appron~ or to tile an appeal and his demand to Stephanie
19 Caballero. he and Katherine received another email from Caballero in which she
20 infonl1\~d them that she had gone ahead and filed the appeal t1Jr them. Jason and Katherine
2J were dumbfounded. to say the least. Neither he nol' Katherine had even impliedly
22 consented to attorney Caballero' s preparation and tiling of the appeal. Indeed. as noted.
23 they expressly forbade her from doing so.
24 27. To make matters Wol'se. just about as bad as an attorney Ikensed to practice law in
25 the State of California could mak.: things for herself and her career. attorney Stephanie
26 Caballeros fraudulently forged Katherine's signature on a letter she drafted and sent to
27 Blue Cross. on another ktter whieh she drafted and sent to Health Care Management. and
28 COMPIAI~T -I 0-
I
I
I
J I upon the appellat~ materials \\hid1 sill: prepared and Jiled with I3Jue Cross.
2128. MagnifYing her Ji'audulent intent and seeming :;ociopathic attitude with r.:gard to
3 i the horrible sltulllion into which she and her ag~ncy had placo.'d the Plaintiffs. on or about
41 April 14.2010. attorney Stephan!c Cubalkm ~Jl1ailed Dr. Marius Breucker. one of the
I
5 !intended parents of the twin babie~ to whom Kath<!rine had given birth . .In attempt to
61 defame Katherine by fraudulclllly and falsely cl(liming. for some unfathomable reason.
7 that "Katherine [T***** had] been in contact \V.itil [the hospital] throughout this process.
8 [sic] even going so far as to [tell the hospitalw] 's~nd lh~ bills to collections. I don't
9 care. The others are there as \lei I. r m stili not going to pay ....... Dr. Breucker knew
10 that Katherine had been trying desperately to get defendunt Stephanie Caballeros and her
11 agency. defendant Extraordinary C onceptiolls to pay the medical bills resulting from her
r
12 services as surrogate mother 10 his twin babies. HI;! had fully funded the trust set up and
13 administered by Extraordinal)' for the very purpose of paying the medical bills. so he
I~ I kne~~' better than to ~all for abs~rd and li~eIOlJs.lies that Stephanie caball~ros had pos~ted
I, to hun about Katherll1e. There/ore. he kmdly Jon\ard defendant Stephanie Caballero s
16 awful email to the Plaintiffs lOuse as they deemed appropriate. Now come the Plaintiffs
J 7 to do, and to seek from the defendants. thilt which is exceedingly appropriate.
18 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
19 (BREACH OF CONTRACT)
20 29. PlaintitTs re-allege and hereby incorporate by referenc.:: herein. in their entirety.
21 each of the allegations Set forth in the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-26 inclusive,and
22 additionally allege the following:
23 30. On or about lune 24.2008. Extraordinary Conceptions explicitly promised in
24 writing to '~obtain a specialized health insurance policy for [Plaintiff Katherine T***** ] .
25 ., ," for purposes of covering any costs. medical or othen\lsc. arising from Katherine's
26 service to Extraordinary and/or any Intended Parents for whom she might carry and bear
27 children. (See Plaintiffs Exhibit 1. "Release & Consent Agreement." p. 3 01'3.)
-1 ] •
31. On Septeml1er 11.2008. the Plaintiff!;. including Katherine's hushand. Jason
:1 T***** . entered into a "Gestational Parenting Agrc\!ment" ostensibly. only between
3 themselves and the Intended Parents of twin hahi.;>s to whom Katherine would ultimate!)
4 gi\'e birth. In both of the dO\:uments dted al1o\,l.'. defimdants E;.;traordinary COllceptions.
5 et al. attempted explicitly to exclude themselves liS panies to any agreement Inl\'ing to do
6 with Katherine's surrogacy. to make th.: surrogacy agreement at issue strictly between the
7 I plaintiffs and the Intended Parents. to e;.;dude themsdn:s as panies in prhity. and
8 thereb\' to shield themselves from am Iiabilit\' for am damages the\' might cause the ~ .. .. ~ ... ~ ....
9 parties by their own wrongful conduct. intentional. unlawful. or otherwise. IPlaintim'
10 Exhibit J. p.:2 of 3: and Plaintiffs' Exhibit 2. p. I." 1 and pan 1.5.} However. the
II defendants res~ryed to themselves authority to reign over 1110st aspects of the agreement
12 between the Plaintiffs and the Intended Parents. (Sec generall\,. PlaintitTs' Exhibit I.) ~. ,
13 I Perhaps most signiticantly. the del"endants reserved to themseh'es authoril) to administer
14 a trust which was (0 be funded by the Intended Parl!nts and which was to be used by
IS Extraordinary Conceptions' for purposes of compensating the Plaintiffs or reimbursing
16 them costs from the funds provided by the Intended Parents. (Plaintiffs Exhibit 1,
17 "Gestational Parenting Agreement." pp. 13. part 19.1. and 14. pan 19.4. e.g.: and see p,
18 20, pan 19.16.4 re obligation of Intended Parents to pay all medical costs. etc.).
19 32, The Plaintiff alleges that she complied fully and faithfully ,'ilh each and every
20 I term of the contract between herself and the defendants. and that she dutifully and timely
21 perfoffi1li>d every act or forbearance required of her under the contract.
22 33. Additionally. the plaintiff alleges that she continued to receive hospital bills
23 despite defendant's repeated reassurances that the matter would be resolved. Plaitltiff
24 I Katherine T***** telephoned and emlliJed the defendants on innumerable occasions in
25 attempt to convince them to perform their contractual obligations. She enm drO\e
26 repeatedly to dd"endant' S oftices for personal "isits in an attempt to ensure that
27 Defendant's staff was working on resolving the issue. More than a few times. the Plaintiff
28 CO\l~L,\I~T -1:>
was required to driw to the dejl:ndul1(:;' ofJices at the defendants' insistence repeatedly to
2 deliver the same bills and other doculll.:'ms she had aln!ady provided to them. lollowing
3 i which visits the dCIi.:ndants would do nothing to as~bt her to get the bills paid.
4 ! 34. Under the tenns of their agreements, the dei"endallls were required to ensure that
:
5 I "all fees. compensations. and benetits properly due and owing to the Surrogate have been
6 I paid in full. and all medical fees. costs and expenses of the Surrogate contemplated to be
7 paid through the Trust Account have been paid in full" (Plaintiffs Gestational Parenting
8 Agreement. Exhibit I. p.14).
9135. The defendant's failed and refused to do those things which they were required to
I
10 do un~er .. t~l~ agre~me~t. The defendants' failure.s and refusals to. tacilitate the payment
11 . of Plaml11ts hospital tees and costs. was a material breach of their agreement.
12 36. Due to the defendants' material breach of the agreement without legal
13 justifkation Of excusc. the Plaintiffs have been severely damaged in that they have been
14 required to expend much of their own monc~'. to make \!xtensive eff()rts of their own and
15 to suffer extreme emotional and financial distrc:ss due to the attempts they were required
16 to make in Yain, in order to mitigate their damages caused by the defendants' breach. such
17 as avoiding a referral to debt collections and collections actions against them personally.
18 Plaintiffs have additionally been damaged tinancially because they have been required to
19 expend tremendous amounts of money in order to secure legal assistance trom attomeys.
20 to become deeply indebted to those attomeys, and to pay the costs of bringing and
21 maintaining this action at law and equity against the det1mdant.
22 37. PlaintitTs allege that the Defel1dal1fs wrongful rcfusallO resolve the maller. and
23 allow the unpaid hospital bills to go into collections. thereby negatively etfecting
24 Plaintiffs' credit history. is the direct and proximate cause of their damages in that. but for
25 the defendant's wrongful refusal. PlaintiffS would not hu\c been required to make the
26 aforementioned repeated efforts. to suffer SeVere emotional al1d financial hamlS. or tt1 be
27 required to pay for attorneys and this action in attempt to resolYe this matter. There has
28 CO~IPIi\I~T .. 13 ..
: been nO intenening cause of the plaintiffs' damages.
1 '38. Wherefore. Plaintiffs respectfully pray for an award of damages in accordance
3 ; with the law and their m:tuall11onetary losses. plus an award of unspecified damages for
4 the expenditures ofth~ Plaintiffs' tillle and cnorts. and forth .. extreme emotional distress
5 which the Plaintiffs ha\e suffered as a result of the defendants' wiltll! nreach. They also
6 request an award of attorney' s j\;:c~ and costs pursuant to Part 37.1 (Prevailing Party
7 Clause) of the Gestational Parenting Agreement. to which agreement the delendants must
8
9
10
11
12 I
I
13
be found to be panies in privity despite their recitals to the contrary - which recitals are
against public policy. logic. and the plainly contradictory other language oCthe
agreements which they required the Plaintiffs unilaterall~' to endorse. and for any other
damages which the court might deem tit \0 award till: plaintiff.
SECOND CAUSE QF ACTlQN
(BAD FAITH)
14 39. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by reference herein. in their entirety.
15 each of the allegations sel forth in the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-36 inclusive, and
16 additionallY. alleges the follo\\'lnl1: ~ ~
J 7 40. Defendant Extraordinary Conceptions and defendant proprietors and managers of
18 that agenc~' were obliged under their agreement with the Plaintiffs to keep and maintain,
J 9 and to ensur~ the proper funding of a trust account to be funded either by the intended
20 parent. or by Extraordinary Conceptions itself. if it failed to ensure proper funding by the
11
22
intended parents. tbr purposes of ensuring the timely payment of all of the Plaintiffs'
medical expenses and for ensuring the timely payment in tlllL in acc(lfdance with the
contract. for the Plaintiffs' surrogacy services.
24 41. By guaranteeing payment of all medical expenses arising from their surrogacy
25 sen'ices. as well as payment to the Plaintiffs tbr their serdces. defendant Extraordinat:
26 Conceptions and the defendant proprietors of that agency assumed the risk and the role of
27 insurers to the Plaintiffs with regard to the proper funding of the trust account. and f'or
-14-
timely payment ofa.l! medicnl costs nssodnted with Plaintiff Katherine's surrogacy. und
2 for tile timel)' payment of full to Katherine (or her sen ices
3 i 42. Defendant Extraordinary Conceptions and the defendant Proprietors of DCI'i!ndunt
I
I
4 i Extraordinary Conceptions have wrongfully and in bad faith. refused to perfonn and
5 I have wrongfullY denied their obligations as insurers after the Plaintiffs had fully
61 perfonm:d their contractual obligations. induding Plaintiff Katherine T***** ~d\ing binh
I
7 I to the baby and relinquishing Care and custody of the baby pursuant to the surrogacy
8 I agreem en t.
9 1 43. By d~nying their obligations as insurers as heretofore alleged. Defendant
10 I E:maordinuf)' Conceptions. and the defendant proprietors of Defendant Extraordinal)'
II I Conceptions have breueh<!d their duties of good faith and fair dealing. owed by insurers
12 to their insureds. by unreasonably den)'ing coverage torPlaill1iff Katherine T***** 's
13 medical care and payment to the Plaintiffs for their sen ices under the surrogacy contract.
14 44. As a result oflhe defendants' wrongfi.d denial of insurance co\crage and
15 conl:omitant breal:hes of good faith and fair dealing as insurers. the Plaintiffs ha\'e
16 5uftered irreparable damage to their theretofore stellar credit scores. serious financial
17 harm - including but not limited to extensive out of pocket losses - and severe emotional
18 distress. Especially severe emotional harm was a foreseeable consequence of the
19 defendants' actions or inactions b<!cause they were aware that Plaintiff Katherine' s post~
20 panum emotional state was especially sensitive. Nevertheless. the defendants disregarded
21 this fact in deciding to breach their special obligations to her panicularly. oj' good faith
22 and fair dealing. and she indeed suffered more eXlensin) emotional harm as a result of
23 their wrongful actions or inactions.
24 45. Wherefore. the Plaintiffs pray for general. special and ~onsequential damages in
25 amounts to be proven during trial. and for punitjve damages in all unspecified amount tor
26 the hanns which the~ caused by their intentional. bad faith tailures to fulfil! their
27 obligations to the Plaintiffs as their insurers.
28 'O~IPLAI\T 15•
THIRD CAtiSE OF ACTlO.1\
(BREACH OF flDLTIARY DUTY)
3 46. Plaintiffs re-allege and h~reby incorporate hy rer",rence herein. in th~ir entirety.
-+ each oflhe allegations set forth in tht: foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-43 inclu~iye. und
5 additionally allege the following:
6 47. The defendants. Defendant Extraordinary Conccpti()J1S ond its proprktors and
7 agents. assumed the roil: of trustees to a trust regarding which the Plaintiffs were
8 beneticiaries. As trustees ofa trust to which the Plaintiffs "efe beneticiaries.the
9 defendants and each of them owed tht: I'lai)1li 11$ and each of them a sp.::cial tiduciary dUly
10 of honest; in fact. and of good faith and fair dealing.
11 I 48. By failing 10 distribute the trust res to the Plaillliffs in accordance with the terms
12 I of the trust which terms of distribution and paymcnt ('fthe res to the PlaintitTs the
13 I defendants themselves devised. tlw ddl.:l1dants and <'nch of them violated their special
I
J -+ I tiduciar'l dUlies 10 the Plaintit1s.
15 149. ;s a result of the defendants' failures to obscne and comport with their special
16 fiduciary duties as twstees of the tru,t tt1 \\ hkh th~ Plaimi ffs wer~ ben~ficiaries. the
\7 PlaintitTs have suffered severe i1nancial. ell111ti(1nul und other harms - such as having to
18 expend tremendous efforts. for naught. in attempt to cOl]\in,e the defendants to distribute
19 the trust res in the manner in which Ihe defendal1ts themselvcs prescribed. and which
20 would have protecied the Plaintiffs from the harms ultimately caused by the defendants'
21 breach of their fiduciary dll1ies.
22 i 50. Wherefore. the Plaintiffs pray lor awards ,11' compensatory. special and
23 consequential damages from the defendants and each of tht:m. in amounts to be proven at
24 trial. and for excmplary/punithc dUlllagcs aguinst the defendants il1 unspecified amounts.
25 i
i
26 I
I
27 I 5 J.
I
FOliRTH CAliSE Of ACTIO:'.'
(FRAUD)
Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate hy r~fereI1~e hereil1. in their entirety.
28 ,t t()\IPL\I~l -16-
each of the allegations set forth in the flJregoing paragrllphs numbered 1•48 inclush•e. and
2 additionally alll!ges the following:
The foregoing misrepresentations of defendants. (Illd each of them. w.ert' made
4 \\ith no n:asollllble basb on tho;! purt of said defendants for belio;!\'ing the
5 misrepresentations to be true.
6 53. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs that they wcre required to contribute
7 financially to the process. Specifically. Defendants require Plaintiffs to pay the medical
8 insurance premiums and to use their insurance to cover the costs of required prenatal care
9 for which Defendants would prolil. B~' using Plaintiffs' insurance for which Plaintiffs
10 paid the premiums. Defendants essentially required Plaintiffs to pay a portion of their
) lawn earnings. which naturally. diminished Plaintiffs' profits from the deal.
12 54. Defendants unlawfully used Plaintiffs insurance tbr their benefit for many reasons,
13 but primarily because Defendants knew without any qut:stion that Plaintiffs medical
14 insurance policy did not cover and would decline to pay for the costs of Plaintiffs
15 surrogate pregnan.) fbI' Defendants' profit. Defendants knew beyond doubt that
16 Plaintiffs' insurer would co\"er the prenatal. birthing and post-partum costs should
17 Plaintitfs' pregnancy ,md birth ofa child in the normal course of things. 50 Defendants
18 intended from the outset to submit claims to Plaintiffs' insurer on Plaintiffs' behalf
19 without ever revealing that Plaintiffs' pregnancy was for purposes of surrogacy from
20 which Defendants would profit.
21 55. Said defendants. although they should ha\e known ()rthe falsity of their
22 representations. failed to disclosed to Plaintiffs. the false and fraudulent nature of
23 defendants'misrepresentations.
24 56. Defendants concealed and suppressed said facts that they were bound to disclose.
25 Moreover. Defendants told PlaimitTs oth.er facts and prevented Plaintitfs from
26 discoYering the suppressed facts. Such facts were suppressed and concealed with the
27 intent to defraud and induce Plaillliffs. Further. defendants knew that Plaintiffs would
28 I COMPJ."I~T
I
I
I
•17•
2
rely upon and act upon such misstatements and misr..:prcscntutiol1s. At the time. the
Plaintiffs \\ere unaware ofthe cOIH.:caled and suppressed ract and would not have taken
the actions subscribed had Plaintiffs Known said IlK•Is .
..( 57. The representations. misrepresi;mtutions und omissions were made and not made.
5 i with tho! intent to induce Plaintiffs to rely thereon. and entcr into a relationship with the
6 defendants. expend money tbr the benefit of del'1:ndants.
7 58. Plaintiffs reasonably relied upon the abo\c-mcntioned misrepresentations. and
8 material omissions as a direct result oCthe success \\ith \\"hich defendants were able to
9 carry out their activities. In rdiance on tlw abow-mentioned misrepresentations.
10 Plaintiffs were defrauded out of amount to be determined at the time of trial.
II 59. As a direct. proximate and legal result of defendants fraud. Plaintit1s have suffered
12 severe emotional. physical and linandal stress.
13 60. Wherefore. Plaintiffs pray for g~neral and ;;pecial damages. including the
14 Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs lip to and including the t1ling and maintenance of this
15 action. (Civil Code section 3336.) Additionally. the Plaintiffs respectfully pray for a
16 reward of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3194. tor purposes of punishing
17 Defendants tor their aforementioned misrepr~sentutitms. and material omissions. which
18 were made willfully and maliciously, with the intent to injure and oppress Plaintiffs.
19 fiFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
20 (NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION)
21 61. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by reference herein. in their entirety.
22 each of the allegations set forth in the toregoing paragraphs numbered I-58 inclush"e. and
additionally alleges the following:
24 62. The defendants Extfaordinat; Conceptions. et al. owed a duty of care to avoid
25 misrepresenting the tnah and the tacts to the Plaintiff); with regard to what Ih", Plaintiffs
26 were entitled to under the surrO.l...l acy.. ag""" reements \\hkh the\,". entered with the defendants.
17 and with regard to what the defendants would th~msehes do toward satisfying their
28 -18-
obligations to the I>jaintiffs under tho: agreement,.
2 63. The defendants and each of them breached their dUlies of due care with regard to
3 avoiding the misrepresentation of the truth ilnd the facts as described abO\c.
4164. As a n:sult of their breach of dUlY of due care to represent to the Plaintitfs only
5 I those things which we~e true and correct. the Plaintiffs haH ,uffered .:xtensive t1nam:i<l1.
I
6 emotional and other damages. such as having to expend tremendous amounts of their own
7 efforts toward convincing the defendants to behave toward them truthfully and accuratel:
8 in accord with the terms of the agreements between them. There were no intervening or
9 superceding causes of the hanl1s caused the Plaintiffs.
10 65. Wherefore. Plaintiffs pray for general and special damages. including the
11 Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs up to and including the tiling and maintenance ofthi5
12 action. (Civil Code section 3336.) Additionally. the Plaintiffs respectfully pray for a
13 reward of punitive damages under Chi! Code section 3294. for purposes of punishing
, ,
14 I Defendants for their grossly negl ig.:nt misrepresentations.
15 SIXIH CAUSE OF ACTIQN
16 (CONVERSION)
17 66. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by rell:rem;e herein. in their entirety.
18 each of the allegations set forth in the foregoing paragraphs numbered 1-63 inclusive. and
19 additionally alleges the following:
20 67. Plaintiffs herein alle!:!e that Defendants haw wrondl.lll\ exercised dominion ~ ~ .
21 and control over Plail1liffs entitlement ofreil11bursements. which under the Gestational
22 Agreement. Defendants were required tl1 hold for her.
23 68. Plaintiffs additionally allege that under the terms of the Gestational Agreement
24 with Defendants. that upon the perfonnance by Plaintiff Katherine in carryiog the
surrogate child to tern1. Katherine held rightful title to and had th..: right to possession of
26 full reimbursement of moneys held in the Trust Fund.
27 69. Despite Defendants• obligation to reimburse Katherine's medical bills as alleged
28 COMPi.Ai:\T •19•
above. Dt.:fl!ndants intentionall~" and wrongfull~" retained pos~cssion of the Trust fund
2 : mone~ with \I hich they were entrusted at the beginning of the Gestational Agre .. menl.
3 ! and they ha\"c failed to timely pay Katherine monies owed with the illlelll pennancntly to
,
4 ' deprive Katherine of the amount due ,md owing.
5 70. Katherine has never waived her right to title nor right to the reimbursement of her
6 i medical bills. nor has she (!\,cr in any fashion conscmcd to Dd'endants' retention of that
7 money.
S 71. Plaintiffs have been hamlcd by Defendallls' wrongful and intentional
9 deprivation of the distribution of the Trust fund money because they haw wrongfully
10 been denied the use of that mone~".
II 72. Defendants' intentional and wrongtlll refusal to reimburse Katherine's medical
12 bills was a direct and proximate cause of Plaintiffs' injury. in that but for Defendants'
13 conduct in intentionally depriving Plaintiffs. the Plaintiffs would have had the benefit of
14 the reimbursed money and would nO! have suffered the deprivation of it as they have. and
15 there are no intervening factors which might relieve Defendants of liability for their
16 refusal to reimburse to them. and Defendants was a substantial factor in causing the
17 Plaintiffs' hann.
18 73. "Wherefore. Plaintiffs pray for general and ~pccial damages. including the
19 Plaintiffs' attomeys fees and costs up to and including the filing llnd maintenance of this
20 action. (Civil Code section 3336.) Additionally. the Plaintiffs respectt'l.l11y pray for a
21
22
?--,'
24
reward of punitive damages under Civil Code section 3294. for purposes of punishing
Defendants for their bad faith. intentional and wrongful conversion orth.:: Plaimiffs' trust
fund money. with malice. oppression or fraud toward the plaintiff.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
. (NEGLIGENCE)
26 74. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereby incorporate by reference herein. in their entirety.
27 each orthe allegations set forth in the f(lreg~'ing paragraphs numbered 1- 71 inclusivc.
•20•
and additionally allege the following:
'l 75. Defendants owe a duty I(l exo;!rds~ due car~ towards Plaintiffs.
3! 76. D~f~ndants' acts or omission, to act coostitllle a brea,h of that duty.
4 I 77. That as a direct and pro;'(it11<1!c r':ouit of the n~giigent. unla\\fui acl5. j~lbc.
5 I
I
6i
7 i
I
8 i
i
wrongful. and willful !Icts of Defendants. as 'llleged above. Plaintiffs were injured.
humiliated. shocked. and suffered and continues to suffer emotional distress lind injury
to their system. all to Plaintitls damage in an amount within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
9 i EIGHTH CAliSE OF ACTION
10 I (INTENTIONAL INFLlCTIO;'li OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
II \ 78. Plaintiffs re-allege and hereb~ incorporate by rderence herein. in their entirety.
121 each of the alkgalions set forth in the foro:going paragraphs numbered 1-75 inclusi\'e.
13 I and additionally aJleges the following:
14 I
79. Defendants' conduct as set out in th" <.:omplaim abOH' was intentional and,
15 malicious and done for the purpose. or \\ith reckless disregard of the likelihood of
16 causing Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation. menial anguish. emotional and physical distress.
17 Such conduct was donc with a conscious al1d'or r..:.:kkss dbregard for the consequences
181 to Plaintiffs' physical and emotional wdl being.
191 80. As the proximate result oCthe aforementioned intentionlll acts of Defendants.
20! Plaintiffs have suffered humiliation. mental anguish. sen~re emotional and physical
21 I distress. and have been injured in mind and hody. These damages arc not presently
22 calculable. and Plaintiffs will seek leave to am.:nd this complaint to confonn to proof
23 presented at trial.
24 81. The aforementioned acts of Defendants were willt1.d. wanton. despicable.
25 malicious and oppressive and justi~' thc awarding of exemplary and punitivc damages in
26 an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter.
')7 : ~ I NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION
I
28 ('()~fI>L~I~T -21-
(NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS)
2 82. Plaintiffs r~-allege and hereby inl.:orporato! by refercne.: herein. in their entir.:ty.
3 each of the allegations set forth in the foregoing pliragraphs numbered 1"79 inclusive.
4 I, and additionally alleges the following:
I
I
5: 83. The defendants and each of them ow.:d the Plaimit'fs a duty ofreasonab1e care not
6 to cause the Plaintiffs by their conduct severe emotional hann.
7 84. The defendants breached their duties to use reasonable caution and prudence so as
not to cause the Plaintiffs undo harm or extr"::01e emotional distress. The defendants
breached their dUly of care in this regard by failing to exercise due caution in dealing
with the Plaintifts pursuant to the defendant's contracllIal agreements with the Plaintiffs.
Furthem10re. there lIas a special duty of carc owed by the defendants to the Plainti ITs in
accordance with the defendants' fiduciary duties to\\"ard the Plaintiffs as discussed
above. but the defendants breached that special duty by liolating their I1duciary duties to
the Plaintiffs. Beyond that special duty. however. the defendants additionally hreached
their duties of due care not to cause the Plaintiffs seyere emotional distress b.\ dealing ~
dishonestly in their contractual relations with the Plaintiff:" or at least by misleading
them even if not intentionally. as described above.
18 85. Plaintiffs are infomlcd and believe. and based thereon allege. that defendants
19 knew. or should have known. that their conduct was likely to cause and result in sc\erc
20 emotional distress and haml to the Plainti ffs.
21 86. As a direct and proximate result of defendants acts. Plaintiffs 5ui1ered severe
22 emotional distress in the form of severe fright. grief: shame. humiliation. embarrassment.
anger. chagrin. disappointment and worry.
24 87. Wherefore. the Plaintiffs pray for general compensator). special and
25 consequential damages in accordance with their proof at trial. Furthermore. the
26 PJaintitTs seek attorneys' fees and costs of this action in <ll.!cord with their contract with
27 the defendants. Finally. the aforementioned acts of defendants \\'ere willful. wanton.
28 COMPl.AI~T
despicable. malicious. and oppressive and justify the (ll,"<lrding of exemplary and punithe
2 damages in an amount subject to proof at the time of trial of this matter.
DATED; JUNE 3, 20 I 0
CO,\U'I.AI!\T
Respectlillly suhmincd.
KOMA:';APALLI MASSEY LLP
JOYCE A, KOMAN,\PALLI
Attorneys for the Plaintiffs

#2 @Sunrise

@Sunrise

    GC x 2: Retired!

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,039 posts

Posted 07 July 2010 - 01:36 PM

I don't know how valid all this info is, so I am going to let it be until someone complains. I have removed the couples last name.

#3 Barbgsx1

Barbgsx1

    Advanced Member

  • Sr. Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 10 July 2010 - 12:52 PM

I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!

Barb :)

#4 thoffman1120

thoffman1120

    Advanced Member

  • Sr. Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts

Posted 10 July 2010 - 09:53 PM

OK...so from what I got from that, the surro KNEW that she was lying, even IF it was at the advise of the attorney, she still KNEW she was lying, I think at best the atty should have to split the cost of the bills with the surro, but she holds half the responsibility IMO.

#5 Gracie

Gracie

    Advanced Member

  • Sr. Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,043 posts

Posted 11 July 2010 - 09:28 PM

I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!

Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.

#6 Barbgsx1

Barbgsx1

    Advanced Member

  • Sr. Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 12:59 PM


I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!

Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.


Not mine in JAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Barb

#7 Gracie

Gracie

    Advanced Member

  • Sr. Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,043 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 02:51 PM



I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!

Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.


Not mine in JAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Barb

I was thinking Hal if it was a Man.
I told someone today about this site and they are checking into it(they have used her too)

#8 Barbgsx1

Barbgsx1

    Advanced Member

  • Sr. Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,825 posts

Posted 12 July 2010 - 04:23 PM




I would love the actual link so I can actully read the lawsuit!! There is currently a lawsuit pending in Florida against a well known attorney right now too for some sort of fraud!!! SCARY STUFF!!!!!!!!!

Barb :)

hummm wonder which atty that is.


Not mine in JAX!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

Barb

I was thinking Hal if it was a Man.
I told someone today about this site and they are checking into it(they have used her too)


He is in Orlando and not Hal. I am still waiting to find the case online, once they file I will post the link :)

#9 Sir O'Gacy

Sir O'Gacy

    Newbie

  • New Member
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Posted 01 June 2011 - 02:09 PM

We reached out to the 2 parties involved in the lawsuits to get their sides of the story. We received a response from the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the case. If you want to read their side of the story you can do so here:

[url="http://unitedstatessurrogacy.com/attorney-representing-plaintiffs-in-extraordinary-conceptions-lawsuits-responds-to-united-states-surrogacy/"]http://unitedstatessurrogacy.com/attorney-representing-plaintiffs-in-extraordinary-conceptions-lawsuits-responds-to-united-states-surrogacy/[/url]

#10 pepperbird

pepperbird

    I'm Not the Mom. I'm Just the Stork.

  • Sr. Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,055 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 10:49 AM

That sucks. I really like Stephanie and had recently sent in an application. I'd like to know more.

I just read something about Theresa Erickson that just blew me away and mad me sick to my stomach. I'll post the info if it hasn't been already.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users